SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500 said:


Think he's addressing the divorce rate and it's effects, however, the tie in at the beginning is that there is some evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage has the unintended consequence of lowering the overall marriage rate.
That was debated in a past thread as well.



can you name for me the state with the lowest divorce rate in the United States?

i'll give you a hint: begins with an M an ends with an -assachusetts.

in sum: it's horseshit. it's no different than saying that letting blacks and whites get married or Jews and Christians to get married lowers the overall divorce rate. there is NO evidence. if you're going to use those Scandinavia "studies" about how fewer people now are getting married in Norway and are choosing to cohabitate, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do since no one puts any stock in those "studies" other than those grasping at straws to dress up their bigotry.
 
INDY500 said:
Think he's addressing the divorce rate and it's effects, however, the tie in at the beginning is that there is some evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage has the unintended consequence of lowering the overall marriage rate.
That was debated in a past thread as well.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. The GOP bitches that Democrats have done nothing but spread FUD about the U.S. and the War on Terror. And what do you do in return? Spread FUD of your own!

Massachusetts is the only U.S. state with gay marriage. Yet, it also has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Likewise, let's rattle off a few Southern states by random; all of them probably have "Defense of Marriage Acts" and all of them have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation.

So, if you were here to actually debate, you might be asking yourself, "What's the correlation?" I'll give you a hint: it has zero to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with the nature of the Christian denomination that predominates the state. Massachusetts, along with the other New England states that have the lowest divorce rates in the nation, are highly Roman Catholic states. Since divorce is highly frowned upon, Catholic couples are ingrained with the idea that you just don't "cut and run" when the going gets tough. There's lots of counseling available, and it's not abnormal for separations prior to the (legal) divorce occurring to last a long time. Protestant denominations? I went to a Protestant wedding once, and the minister laughably started talking about the possibility of divorce in the ceremony! And guess what? A year later, they did end up divorced.

None of this has fuck to do with gay marriage, and I know you know it. Scapegoating gays and gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage, because that means you all get to avoid that necessary examination of conscience that will allow you to reform your churches to address this. No, instead, Christianity has let itself rot, because certain fundamentalist Christians have transformed their religion into a political arm of the Republican Party.

I find it absolutely disgusting that a thinking individual allows themselves to spout this illogical and bigoted nonsense. Say what you want about gays and gay marriage, but lying is still a sin, no matter if it is a means to an end or not.
 
Last edited:
melon said:


Nonsense. Complete nonsense. The GOP bitches that Democrats have done nothing but spread FUD about the U.S. and the War on Terror. And what do you do in return? Spread FUD of your own!

Massachusetts is the only U.S. state with gay marriage. Yet, it also has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Likewise, let's rattle off a few Southern states by random; all of them probably have "Defense of Marriage Acts" and all of them have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation.

So, if you were here to actually debate, you might be asking yourself, "What's the correlation?" I'll give you a hint: it has zero to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with the nature of the Christian denomination that predominates the state. Massachusetts, along with the other New England states that have the lowest divorce rates in the nation, are highly Roman Catholic states. Since divorce is highly frowned upon, Catholic couples are ingrained with the idea that you just don't "cut and run" when the going gets tough. There's lots of counseling available, and it's not abnormal for separations prior to the (legal) divorce occurring to last a long time. Protestant denominations? I went to a Protestant wedding once, and the minister laughably started talking about the possibility of divorce in the ceremony! And guess what? A year later, they did end up divorced.

None of this has fuck to do with gay marriage, and I know you know it. Scapegoating gays and gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage, because that means you all get to avoid that necessary examination of conscience that will allow you to reform your churches to address this. No, instead, Christianity has let itself rot, because certain fundamentalist Christians have transformed their religion into a political arm of the Republican Party.

I find it absolutely disgusting that a thinking individual allows themselves to spout this illogical and bigoted nonsense. Say what you want about gays and gay marriage, but lying is still a sin, no matter if it is a means to an end or not.

You seriously didn't know that I was talking about areas that have sanctioned same-sex marriage for more than a decade? Like the Netherlands. Anyway, I clearly said "some evidence" not "conclusive evidence." I'm not even sure if there is a direct link, but it's at least worth monitoring isn't it?
No...probably not, just more bigoted nonsense.

Here's the link as provided by Nathan1977 back in this 3rd thread.

http://forum.interference.com/t167358.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140886/posts
 
INDY500 said:
You seriously didn't know that I was talking about areas that have sanctioned same-sex marriage for more than a decade? Like the Netherlands. Anyway, I clearly said "some evidence" not "conclusive evidence." I'm not even sure if there is a direct link, but it's at least worth monitoring isn't it?
No...probably not, just more bigoted nonsense.

Here's the link as provided by Nathan1977 back in this 3rd thread.

http://forum.interference.com/t167358.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140886/posts

Here's an example of that nonsense, as posted in your "Free Republic" article:

get_galleryfile.asp


Looking at that curve, even prior to that first court case in 1989, shows an increase in out-of-wedlock childbirth. Just because you put in some bullet points that reflect key moments in the legalization of gay marriage shows no causation.

Could it be the end result of the fact that Europe has steadily and increasingly rejected Christianity for over 200 years, and, as such, has little use for its institutions? Church attendance has been tremendously low for decades in most of these nations.

Could it be the result of the decades after the 1960s counterculture movement, where heterosexuals have increasingly decided that marriage isn't needed for love? That divorce is too much of a hassle, so why get married in the first place?

Could it be the result of shifting birthrates, where higher educated, wealthier people are not having children at all, and, as such, lower educated poorer people, who are less likely to use birth control and family planning are skewing the percentage in their favor? After all, this is happening in the U.S., and it's noted to be even greater in Europe.

No, it's OBVIOUSLY all because of "the gays." Heterosexuals are completely blameless, innocent, and pure, so if there's something wrong with them, it must be the fault of "the gays." Oh yes. :rolleyes:

For fuck's sake, if only conservatives would take their own goddamn advice and take responsibility for their own actions for once, instead of always blaming someone else! "Gay marriage," itself, has nothing to do with any of this! All of these trends are acting independently, and as the result of larger socioeconomic trends that have roots decades or even centuries old! If you forcefully banned gay marriage tomorrow, you are not suddenly going to make Europe more Christian, more likely to get married, or more likely to have more children, because nobody at all has changed their lifestyle based on whether gays can get married or not. Considering the U.S.' high divorce rate, high out-of-wedlock birth rate, and "Defense of Marriage Acts," it's pretty fucking obvious that heterosexuals have done a pretty good job fucking up their own lives without "the gays." What are you going to do next? Blame "the Jews" for why corporations are outsourcing more jobs than ever?

What utterly offensive stupidity! And conservatives wonder why liberals have such a short fuse with them!
 
You don't really know anything about the Netherlands, do you Indy? :lmao:


Well, in 1989 the Iron Wall came down, so maybe it's all those communists that are responsible for our divorce rates. :hmm:

If you took a closer look at the graph the trend started in 1975.

And as melon said, there are so many reasons why today divorce rate in most countries is higher than in the 1950's and 60's, and it doesn't have the least to do with homosexuals.

It would also help your point to find some sources that are independent, non-partisan, neutral and scientifical reliable.

There's no real statistical correlation between the two, just the desperate attempt to make it look like it goes hand in hand. And some obviously fall for it. :rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography Hm, higher in the US than Netherlands, Belgium, or especially Spain (all countries that provide marriage to homosexuals), and higher than most other countries that provide forms of civil unions.

And still, this isn't proving anything, as it just isn't in anyway correlated with each other!

In some countries most people don't even marry because of religious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Any third grader who knows how to read a graph could see the curve was heading that direction without that factor...

FreeRepublic, that's so sweet that conservatives would think that would be considered a legitimate source.:giggle:
 
INDY500 said:


You seriously didn't know that I was talking about areas that have sanctioned same-sex marriage for more than a decade? Like the Netherlands. Anyway, I clearly said "some evidence" not "conclusive evidence." I'm not even sure if there is a direct link, but it's at least worth monitoring isn't it?
No...probably not, just more bigoted nonsense.



yup, this is what i was talking about, and no, it's not worth mentioning. and i see Melon has done all the heavy lifting, so i won't even go there except to repeat the obvious:

there is no correlation whatsoever between gay people getting married and straight people getting divorced.

none.

however, if we want to draw these parallels, we ought to prevent the Christians from marrying. why, just look:

[q]Walking the walk on family values
By William V. D'Antonio | October 31, 2004

PRESIDENT Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found.

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

How to explain these differences? The following factors provide a partial answer:

More couples in the South enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower in the South.

Southern states have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, "a denomination that does not recognize divorce." Barna's study showed that 21 percent of Catholics had been divorced, compared with 29 percent of Baptists.

Education. Massachusetts has about the highest rate of education in the country, with 85 percent completing high school. For Texas the rate is 76 percent. One third of Massachusetts residents have completed college, compared with 23 percent of Texans, and the other Northeast states are right behind Massachusetts.

The liberals from Massachusetts have long prided themselves on their emphasis on education, and it has paid off: People who stay in school longer get married at a later age, when they are more mature, are more likely to secure a better job, and job income increases with each level of formal education. As a result, Massachusetts also leads in per capita and family income while births by teenagers, as a percent of total births, was 7.4 for Massachusetts and 16.1 for Texas.

The Northeast corridor, with Massachusetts as the hub, does have one of the highest levels of Catholics per state total. And it is also the case that these are among the states most strongly supportive of the Catholic Church's teaching on social justice issues such as minimum and living wages and universal healthcare.

For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society. Family values are much more likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream liberal. By their behavior you can know them as the true conservatives. They are showing how to conserve family life through the way they live their family values.

William V. D'Antonio is professor emeritus at University of Connecticut and a visiting research professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.
[/q]
 
Well, since this is a presidential campaign thread, how do the candidates stack up in the marriage department? Have the Republican candidates been in longer, more monogamous marriages than the Democratic candidates?


Because it is all about the marriages, right?
 
martha said:

Because it is all about the marriages, right?



and marriage is all about the kids. after all, it's one man and one woman that provide the best possible environment for a child. we should measure candidates by how well they've done their job as parents.

just ask Rudy's kids.
 
Nicely said, everybody, in response to INDY :up:. And along with what melon listed for reasons as to why marriage among straight people is decreasing, I'd also say that when you're WAY too busy worrying about other people's relationships instead of focusing on making sure the one you have going is in good working order, that'd be another possible explanation for climbing divorce rates.

Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business. WHAT is so hard to understand about that concept?

Angela
 
More couples in the South enter their first marriage at a younger age.

I've encountered more than one story of where once someone turned 18 and happened to be in a relationship, the expectation was that they would get married ASAP. And then after that, they would be expected to have children ASAP. The family pressure would be so immense that you would have been hard pressed to refuse, if you weren't prepared to move away and essentially cut off ties to your family.

So I can see why the divorce rates would be higher in an environment like this.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Nicely said, everybody, in response to INDY :up:. And along with what melon listed for reasons as to why marriage among straight people is decreasing


Melon said, Melon said. Guess what, Melon didn't say ANYTHING that wasn't acknowledged or mentioned in the article or myself on my 2nd post discussing the article on the post.

Melon: Looking at that curve, even prior to that first court case in 1989, shows an increase in out-of-wedlock childbirth.
Kurtz: In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase

Melon: Could it be the end result of the fact that Europe has steadily and increasingly rejected Christianity for over 200 years, and, as such, has little use for its institutions?
Kurtz: No Western society has secularized more radically or rapidly than Holland. The Netherlands changed from one of the most religious countries in Europe to one of the most secular. Today, nearly three-quarters of the Dutch under 35 claim no religious affiliation.

Melon: Could it be the result of the decades after the 1960s counterculture movement, where heterosexuals have increasingly decided that marriage isn't needed for love?
Kurtz: The cultural revolution of the 1960s weakened the churches. Once faith became too fragile to sustain the social order, the pillars collapsed.... Even as premarital cohabitation became nearly universal, and as cohabitation acquired virtually equal status with marriage under Dutch law in the 1980s
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And, if we're all on the same page about marriage rates and out- of-wedlock births rising before same-sex marriage, why can't we "monitor" those rates afterwards given these kind of statements from same-sex advocates, also from the article?

During the 2000 parliamentary debates, Green party spokesman Femke Halsema said it was only when considered superficially that the drive for same-sex marriage appeared to contradict the feminist quest for the abolition of marriage. In reality, said Halsema, conservative opponents were largely right to claim that gay marriage would be tantamount to the abolition of marriage--which was exactly why gay marriage was a good thing.

Dutch lesbian intellectual Xandra Schutte argued in De Groene Amsterdammer (The Green Amsterdammer) that providing gay marriage as one of a menu of relationship options was the equivalent of the abolition of marriage.

Now, the American debate is more centered on equality and stability, but is it really bigoted nonsense to even consider the question of the long term effects of same-sex marriage on society? After all, I thought we all approved science, even if it's only social science.


Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business. WHAT is so hard to understand about that concept?
Angela

Put same-sex marriage aside for a moment, this was also the argument in the 90's about single-family households and "Murphy Brown." Well, we have a little better statistics about that and guess what? It isn't pretty. Higher rates of dropout, drug use, teen pregnancy and crime.

So how is Mike Huckabee or myself wrong when we say "marriage does matter, I would add that nothing in our society matters more. Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families."?
 
Last edited:
So, the homos are responsible for illegitimate births among heteros?

And homos who want to marry ...will be responsible for fewer marrriages?


Is that really what you're saying? If so, did you pull a muscle arriving at these conclusions?
 
But you can make statistics about an entire country say almost anything when you only look at one factor. There's so many factors involved in that statistic, which is why it is total bullshit to suggest that homosexuality could have been a cause. Yes, it COULD have, but it's no more likely than any other factor.
 
INDY500 said:
Melon said, Melon said. Guess what, Melon didn't say ANYTHING that wasn't acknowledged or mentioned in the article or myself on my 2nd post discussing the article on the post.

Get real. You know what this article reads like? A Hamas television program on Judaism. You know, Hamas says that "the Jews" murder and drink the blood of Muslim babies and children. So if Hamas, a group that hates Jews, says it, it must be true.

This article reads according to similar logic. That is, identifying "a problem" and grasping for straws to scapegoat someone you already hate. If this article is so reputable and well-researched, then why is it only published from a source that already has a predetermined hatred of homosexuals?

Fuck. I don't know why I even waste my time on this bigoted filth. Maybe it's only because I'm trying to prevent anyone else from innocently buying this bullshit. One thing is for sure; American education has certainly gone down the crapper for people to mindlessly believe this nonsense.

At least I can now understand why groups like the KKK existed for as long as it did. And just as it took decades to rid this nation of racist crap, it will take decades of work to eliminate this homophobic nonsense.
 
INDY500 said:


And, if we're all on the same page about marriage rates and out- of-wedlock births rising before same-sex marriage, why can't we "monitor" those rates afterwards given these kind of statements from same-sex advocates, also from the article?



you do see the hilarious irony, though, don't you?

guess who's never, ever going to have a single out-of-wedlock childbirth?

gay people.

so let the gay people get married so they can form stable unions and then go about adopting the children that you irresponsible straight people keep shitting out onto the street, just stop blaming us for your shortcomings.

you realize, too, that blaming gay people for things that are 100% straight is really no different than the scapegoating of the Jews.



[q]Now, the American debate is more centered on equality and stability, but is it really bigoted nonsense to even consider the question of the long term effects of same-sex marriage on society? After all, I thought we all approved science, even if it's only social science.[/q]

do you realize the leap you're making when you're blaming the decline of striaght marriages on the rise of gay marriage? you realize that one has NOTHING to do with one another? these are very, very basic Psychology 101 mistakes you're making. the *only* correlation that might be made is when civil unions become an option #2, and open to everyone. then, you might see straights entering into relationships that have been definitionally created as "separate but equal" and, due to your need to kick gay people, they aren't as strong as marriage. however, this is another straight issue that you're foisting on gay people. and thusly, the only way to solve it, is to remove discrimination from marriage and have it open to consenting adult partners, gay or straight.




So how is Mike Huckabee or myself wrong when we say "marriage does matter, I would add that nothing in our society matters more. Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families."?

so you "make marriage matter" by kicking gay people out? by providing straight people scapegoats? by saying, "no, it's not your fault you got married after you got pregnant by 19 and now you're 26 and you hate each other; it's those terrible gays who want to get married, that's why you want a divorce."

i'm all for straights getting all the help they apparently need, i just don't want to be your scapegoat.

if you're so concerned with the decline of heteorsexual marriage, then lets push legislation that have prohibitions on divorce, birth control, adultery, and female employment.

deal with your own shit, don't put it on me. i haven't done anything except ask to be treated like a citizen of the United States.
 
Last edited:
martha said:
So, the homos are responsible for illegitimate births among heteros?

"Put same-sex marriage aside for a moment, this was also the argument in the 90's about single-family households and Murphy Brown."
Wow!! I thought that was pretty clear. Haven't you mentioned that you're a school teacher?
And homos who want to marry ...will be responsible for fewer marrriages?
Is that really what you're saying? If so, did you pull a muscle arriving at these conclusions?

Just quoting Dutch advocates of same-sex marriage. Why don't you ask them for clarification.
 
INDY500 said:

"Put same-sex marriage aside for a moment, this was also the argument in the 90's about single-family households and Murphy Brown."



but you're blaming gay people for straight failures. one has nothing to do with one another. nothing.






[q]Just quoting Dutch advocates of same-sex marriage. Why don't you ask them for clarification. [/q]

why are you assuming that these two wild quotes from far left politicians are representative of majority Dutch opinion, or even that such motivations are present in the United States.

i have never, ever heard any serious public figure in the United States make those arguments.

anyway, again, there's a huge irony here: the only people arguing for a smorgasboard of relationship options are straight people. we are at a point where all of the Democratic candidates, a majority of US citizens, and even many Republicans, are all in favor of Civil Unions. it's gay people who want marriage, not a Diet Marriage, but all we seem to be able to get, right now, is this Marriage Lite option.

so, again, it is STRAIGHT people and their inability to view gay people as their human equivalents that are creating this relationship smorgasboard that you so seem to fear. it is not gay people at all. the mainstream gay position, for now, is that we want marriage, but we'll have to settle for civil unions.

again: ALL YOUR FAULT.

stop blaming me for the inability of straight people to live up to your ideals.
 
Last edited:
INDY500 said:
Kurtz: In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase


Kurtz: No Western society has secularized more radically or rapidly than Holland. The Netherlands changed from one of the most religious countries in Europe to one of the most secular. Today, nearly three-quarters of the Dutch under 35 claim no religious affiliation.


Kurtz: The cultural revolution of the 1960s weakened the churches. Once faith became too fragile to sustain the social order, the pillars collapsed.... Even as premarital cohabitation became nearly universal, and as cohabitation acquired virtually equal status with marriage under Dutch law in the 1980s



what does any of this have to do with gay people who want to get married?
 
It has also become a lot easier to get divorced in the last 2-3 decades (depending on the jurisdiction) which accounts for a large number of the divorces obtained since.

But then I suppose some people would prefer that one stay miserable in a marriage like they used to back in the 50s.
 
Irvine511 said:


do you realize the leap you're making when you're blaming the decline of striaght marriages on the rise of gay marriage? you realize that one has NOTHING to do with one another? these are very, very basic Psychology 101 mistakes you're making. the *only* correlation that might be made is when civil unions become an option #2, and open to everyone. then, you might see straights entering into relationships that have been definitionally created as "separate but equal" and, due to your need to kick gay people, they aren't as strong as marriage. however, this is another straight issue that you're foisting on gay people. and thusly, the only way to solve it, is to remove discrimination from marriage and have it open to consenting adult partners, gay or straight.

You overanalyze, if this were a debate it would start off:

Proposed (pun not intended)
* Spend enough time telling people that marriage is not about parenthood and they just might begin to believe you. Make household diversity and relationship equality a rallying cry, remove societal supports, and people might decide that all forms of relationship are equal -- especially young people, of family-forming age, most of whom have left religion behind. *

Now this debate started decades before any country sanctioned same-sex marriage. It isn't "Gays are ruining everything" it's "are all forms of relationships equal?" and "should society promote any above the others?"

I think that's a debate worth having. Those in the "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business" crowd don't.

if you're so concerned with the decline of heteorsexual marriage, then lets push legislation that have prohibitions on divorce, birth control, adultery, and female employment.

deal with your own shit, don't put it on me. i haven't done anything except ask to be treated like a citizen of the United States.

On what grounds? Personal responsibility is out. Morality is out.
Remember it's "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business."
 
Last edited:
INDY500 said:
On what grounds? Personal responsibility is out. Morality is out.
Remember it's "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business."

Who needs "personal responsibility" when we can blame "the gays" instead?
 
Back
Top Bottom